I don't know how to answer that. I don't know how to answer a question that stupid, or that disingenuous. Which is probably how you want to it. You seem to really want to carry the day in this truly mind-numbing, soul-crushing debate, this semantic debate over whether bowl games ought or ought not be considered or verbally characterized as 'meaningless' or not. And what sort of exact word choice is in order when speaking about them. Going so far as to cite their economic importance to the host city, and you've followed that up with an equally compelling mention of the mere fact that teams actually play in them rather than snub them altogether, as further strong evidence of their meaningfulness, which is I suppose is the word one would use. Or their lack of meaninglessness. Their significance, perhaps? Does that work for you?
I don't think anyone really agrees with you. Except for a pretty small cadre of reactionary, old-school hardcore CFB fans. The rest of the country at large, including other sports fans, probably considers bowl games to be more or less meaningless. If they think anything at all. Not that they should all be put to the sword. But that they don't really matter, in any real grand or larger sense. That they're just exhibition games for fun, something to watch on ESPN on a Thursday night in the month of December when you get down to it. And who doesn't want more CFB??
Ultimately, whether or not something is meaningful, though it pains me somewhat to admit it, is most likely a matter of opinion. Or something like that I don't even know anymore.....